I have noticed that for quite some time here, autism is used as an insult and tool of harassment on this forum. I felt that it was necessary for me to explain why that is not okay.

First, I’d like to mention that I am very good friends with a person who has Asperger Syndrome (which has been reclassified as a form of high-functioning autism in the DSM 5). This friend of mine is brilliant, hardworking, and has the commendable goal of becoming a doctor. I am aware that at times, she faces difficulty because of her condition, but it does not (and should not) devalue her as a human being whatsoever. If any of you met her in person, I doubt that any of you would say that she was “retarded” or “out of touch with reality” as has been said of people with autism on this forum.

I would like to present the idea that autism should not be viewed as a disorder or syndrome, but rather as a variation of the norm. Here are two presentations by autistic people, one by Temple Grandin and the other by Rosie King. In both of these lectures, it is made clear that autistic people think differently from most, which can be disabling in some ways, but they also excel at certain tasks. Thus, the autistic mind is not inferior to that of a non-autistic mind—it is just different.

This brings up another concern, which is what variations of the norm should be considered disabilities. To do that, I’d like to explain two prevalent models of disability: the medical model and the social model.

The Medical Model of Disability is the notion that there is some sort of perfectly normal, healthy person, and any deviation from that norm is a flaw that needs to be corrected. This inevitably leads to conditions such as autism being labeled as disorders that ought to be “cured.” At its worst, the medical model can be a tool of discrimination, labeling people as flawed for having any sort of harmless variation, such as homosexuality, for example. Due to these concerns, the medical model has gradually been losing sway in academia.

The Social Model of Disability is the direct counter to the medical model, which does not consider variations among people to be flaws with any positive or negative qualities in themselves. Rather, it is society which acts to make these variant people disabled through lack of accommodation for them. For example, autistic people are only disabled because our society is not constructed in a way that allows them to be fulfilled. Likewise, someone who cannot walk is only disabled because we have a society which frequently requires people to walk. A criticism of this model is that it ignores the fact that some people actually suffer because of their disability itself, and not because of society’s limitations. Even so, the social model has gained widespread acceptance and has offered new insight into groups that had been considered flawed by the previous medical model, such as transgender, homosexual, or autistic people.

So, to bring this back to the discussion of people with autism, it is not an inherently negative trait. It is just simply a different way of thinking. Furthermore, to simply call someone autistic with the intention of it being taken as an insult is pretty senseless considering that it is based on the assumption that being autistic is something to be ashamed about. Autism is not a synonym for “stupid” and we should we take care not to view it that way.

The problem with that is that banning people just takes a few mouse clicks. It’s not quite the same as a battle to the death, especially since there is no measuring of strength in banning, which is the whole point of the Sith hierarchy.

Well, not quite (And yes, I understand that you’re speaking in jest (at least I hope) but I feel like I should elaborate for those that might not understand that your remark is sarcastic).

A few criteria need to be met before a person becomes a moderator.

First, there needs to be a need for a moderator. This part is largely out of your control. If the forum is doing just fine with the moderators that are already present, then it is unlikely that new moderators will be recruited. If, however, it is deemed that there is insufficient moderation, which might be caused by moderators leaving, then the search for new moderators may begin. Whether or not the current moderation team is sufficient to carry out moderation is admittedly somewhat arbitrary and is left up to the discretion of the powers that be.

Second, once the need for a moderator has been established, then the selection of moderators will take place. Generally, moderators must be well known, frequently participatory, and somewhat well-liked within the community. This is to ensure that the moderator has some ties to the community itself, which will then lead to greater trust and respect between moderators and the community.

Finally, to elaborate more on the second point, the personality and motivations of the candidate for moderator must be assessed. The simplest way I can convey the desired personality of a moderator is to think of the Jedi from Star Wars. Consider the scene in which Luke asks Yoda, “How will I know the good from the bad?” Yoda responds with “You will know when you are calm, at peace.” Essentially, what this means is that a moderator must be able to maintain a feeling of calmness toward the situation so that it may be judged objectively and professionally. If a moderator is too zealous with his or her actions, then their judgment may be clouded by passion, and they might end up doing more harm than good. The moderator should also be humble. Recall Episode III when Anakin sought to become a Jedi Master, and the council denied him, saying that he was not ready. The reason they did that was because Anakin thought of a position on the council as a seat of power to be sought after, which is certainly not what it is meant to be. Likewise, the position of moderator is not a position of authority. Expressing eagerness to become a moderator will usually call your motives into question, which is precisely why you should not ask to be made a moderator. In summary, a moderator should ideally be someone who keeps calm in any situation and does not seek authority or power over others.

This does raise the question of what a forum whose moderation selection is founded on Sith principles would be like. I imagine that there would be some way for users to compete with one another to be in the top position. I doubt that the Sith method of train-an-apprentice-until-the-apprentice-kills-you would really work out in practice.

I haven’t really done anything with my steam wallet, but it has been funded entirely by selling cards ($1.51 so far), and every time I put a card on the market there’s that dread of “Did I put the right price? Are people actually going to buy this? Is someone going to put it for 1 cent cheaper, and they’ll buy that one instead?”

Congratulations on making your goal.

Yeah, it’s like a power fantasy in a way. I get to experience the “struggles” of the bourgeoisie as I trade these pseudo-stocks. Even though I’m just trading nickels and dimes while Valve profits from the whole system.

While there is a significant overlap between the two groups, I’d still say they’re different phenomena. Bronyism is, at its core, tied to the television series, while furries have no such ties. Bronies were created from a specific piece of mass media, and although it could be argued that furries were inspired by anthropomorphic animals in cartoons, the furry fandom does not have a specific work that it is bound to.

Also, when looking back through this thread, I saw a post of mine from 2011 where I said I was a brony. Upon seeing it, I immediately deleted it out of embarrassment. What was I thinking back then? Why couldn’t I foresee my future self cringing at memories I had long since tried to suppress?

I know at the time, I sort of did it as an act of solidarity. The brony fad was helping to breathe some life and activity into the forum, and with its themes of friendship, love, and tolerance, it seemed to be a constructive force for the community. That of course raises the question, just how serious was I? Was it just a facade so that I would appear to be an involved member of the community, or was I a legitimate fan of the show? I know I watched a couple of episodes just to get a basic familiarity with what all the hype was about, but I know I quickly lost interest. That disinterest, over time, has distilled into outright rejection.

I think from now on, I’ll just choose to dissociate myself from most fads and fandoms.

So on Steam, Castle Crashers is on sale for $1.49 for the next 8 hours. I have $1.36 in my Steam wallet. I figured I’d sell some of those trading card things to make up the difference. So I have 8 hours to make 14 cents.

It’s like I’m a stock broker. The cards are pretty much useless in themselves, I’m just hoping some gullible schmucks are going to give me money for them. I’m watching the little line graph intensely, trying to find that sweet price where it sells quickly, but for enough money.

Just sitting, waiting for money to come.

I’m such a schmuck.

Do any of you know that feeling?

IMPORTANTUPDATE: After about twenty minutes, I got up to $1.55. Enough for the game. That’s 19 cents in 20 minutes, or 57 cents per hour.

You look a little gray in the photo. Have you been taking your vitamins?

Also, the hair looks good, I guess. Whether or not it’s actually good is only in your jurisdiction. All you can rely on the opinions of others for is for us to enforce some societal norms upon you. All I can really say is that I probably would not choose that haircut, but only because that is not how I would express myself. By you choosing that style of hair, you are, in some sense, expressing yourself rather than conforming to the will of society, which is a good thing. I applaud.

“Most harsh” is entirely subjective, but I have an idea as to why it might be more offensive than words such as fuck or shit.

That reason is simple: it is a derogatory term. In this case, it refers to women, but there are other derogatory terms that refer to other disenfranchised groups, such as black, homosexual, transgender, etc people. Because such terms are used as tools of discrimination, they are generally not allowed here on Kongregate (though context can sometimes create exceptions).

This is in contrast to words such as fuck or shit, which are merely vulgar. They refer to bodily processes that some may find disgusting, so restraint is recommended with such terms, but they are not outright forbidden. An exception however, is when these terms are directed toward someone (For example, “Fuck you; you’re a piece of shit.”). At this point, the terms are used to be abusive. While such language is not necessary to be abusive to another person, they clearly signify a lack of respect.

Retard and idiot are curious examples of derogatory slurs. They were once used as medical terms, but have been abandoned by medical professionals as society repurposed them into insults. Generally, it is still offensive toward mentally disabled people to use the term retard, but society tends to turn a blind eye toward that for some reason.

TL;DR: It’s bad because it singles out a particular group for discrimination.

Keep in mind that this can be seen as a benefit of capitalism. By having different companies competing with each other and seeking an edge, it drives innovation. A new iPhone comes out every year but that new iPhone always has improved technology. One problem I rarely see brought up in topics of socialism is how to deal with the issue of stagnation. Without a purpose to innovate, one can envision a society that merely subsists at its current technological level.

Alright, let’s deal with the issue of innovation. I have discussed how technological progress under socialism can benefit people as workers (by lessening the burden of work for them), though I suppose I did not describe how it benefits them as consumers.

First, let us deal with how new technologies come into being. Under socialism, if higher education was treated as one of those “positive rights” that I described to Speardudezor, then higher education would be made available to all who desired it, as opposed to only those who could afford it. This means that there would certainly be no shortage of educated people in society. I also assume that those colleges and universities that undertook educating students would also be the places where research and development could be done. By having all research and development taking place in academic settings, their findings and technological innovations could be treated as public goods available to anyone.

But then, once those innovations are found, how would they be implemented in society? Well, if we remember that the workers are the same people who consume products, and since they control the means of production, that means they can directly choose what they wish to make. Once a college or university finds out how to make some new and fantastic item, if the people want it, they can collectively decide for factories to start producing it.

Thus, innovation can be made without those drawbacks like deceptive marketing or planned obsolescence. It also is done through cooperation instead of competition. Competition, of course, has numerous drawbacks of its own. If one company out-competes another, then the workers of the failing company will go unemployed through no fault of their own, and the employees of the successful company would be pushed to the breaking point so that they could out-produce the workers of the other company.

Another point of your I disagree with is when you say it’s more profitable for drug companies to make temporary treatments instead of permanent cures. Again, the issue of competition arises. If a company were to discover, say, a cure or breast cancer? They would make billions! The amount of money they’d make from distributing a cure instead of just a treatment would be more immense than we could imagine. The only way your argument here holds water is if you believe all of the pharmaceutical companies are in a price-fixing agreement, which frankly seems unlikely and can be dealt with in a capitalistic society via anti-trust agreements and the like.

That is a good point. I suppose I was thinking in terms of a monopoly rather than a system which includes multiple competing companies. Still, price-fixing has occurred in the past under capitalism, and though anti-trust laws can hinder practices such as these, the method does have its limits. Remember in my response to tHErofLwaffLe that money has considerable weight in politics, which means that those who can make the highest campaign contributions (the wealthy business owners) can sway the government to act in their favor.

But also remember that under capitalism, the company that did find a miracle cure to some disease could charge exorbitant amounts of money for it, keeping the cure solely in the hands of the wealthy. You might claim that under capitalism, competition would keep the price low, but patenting the drug would ensure that only one company would be able to produce it. However, once that patent expired, even competition might not make the cure available to the extremely poor.

Under socialism, cures, like all innovations, would be treated as public goods, and distributed to all those who need them.

If we knew about everything in the universe (this is called omniscience), I doubt we’d be scared. Much of our fear comes from our uncertainty of the future. We don’t know if our futures will be good or bad, and that brings about feelings of anxiety and fear.

However, if we knew our futures with exact certainty, we would know precisely when we would die and how. And, assuming that our knowledge of the future would be infallibly true, there would be no way of preventing this death. Would that make us scared? Maybe, but it would be a different kind of fear than one born out of uncertainty.

On a scale from 1-10, I’d say √-1, since it wouldn’t be fear as we can currently perceive it. It would be unreal.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »